Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
Whether the music was too loud is irrelevant. Once he was pulled over he was required to produce a license. Most likely the cop would have told him to keep his banger-thumping down and let him go. Even if he gave him a ticket, the guy could go to court and argue to the judge that he has a right to thump to his homies.
He was pulled over because he was playing his stereo too loud. Apparently that violated a local ordinance. Not random at all. Perhaps the town doesn't want people blasting their tunes out at 2 am in neighborhoods when people are trying to sleep. How repressive government can be. It's getting so a guy can't be a total dick wad without the man coming down on you.
Simply because the cop pulled him over then it must've been wrong? I didnt see anything that suggested anything violated anything.
What time mark did you see that?
You don't see it. That is the point. You have decided the cop must have been wrong because this twit says so. Based upon the behavior in the video, I'll take the cop's word over his any day. I hope the idiot decides to use the video as evidence in court. That will make the prosecution happy.
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Can you be any more stupid?
The violation was he was playing his music too loud. We know this because he denied it was too loud. His denial doesn't mean squat. He was going to receive a citation regardless of what he thinks the law is. He can argue his case to the judge.
It was a "lawful stop". A cop is allowed to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
In Redondo Beach the loud thumping music on the Esplanade in the summer made the beach a misery. The police stopped the cars and removed the speakers then let them go. They could pick up their property at the court later. No tickets and no arrests.
Simply because the cop pulled him over then it must've been wrong? I didnt see anything that suggested anything violated anything.
What time mark did you see that?
You don't see it. That is the point. You have decided the cop must have been wrong because this twit says so. Based upon the behavior in the video, I'll take the cop's word over his any day. I hope the idiot decides to use the video as evidence in court. That will make the prosecution happy.
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Can you be any more stupid?
The violation was he was playing his music too loud. We know this because he denied it was too loud. His denial doesn't mean squat. He was going to receive a citation regardless of what he thinks the law is. He can argue his case to the judge.
It was a "lawful stop". A cop is allowed to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
The fact he denied it gives you a clue as to the purpose of the stop you moron.
Do you have someone around you that can help you think?
You don't see it. That is the point. You have decided the cop must have been wrong because this twit says so. Based upon the behavior in the video, I'll take the cop's word over his any day. I hope the idiot decides to use the video as evidence in court. That will make the prosecution happy.
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Can you be any more stupid?
The violation was he was playing his music too loud. We know this because he denied it was too loud. His denial doesn't mean squat. He was going to receive a citation regardless of what he thinks the law is. He can argue his case to the judge.
It was a "lawful stop". A cop is allowed to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
The fact he denied it gives you a clue as to the purpose of the stop you moron.
Do you have someone around you that can help you think?
Does the fact that she didnt care about the law provide any insight at all about the stop or no?
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Can you be any more stupid?
The violation was he was playing his music too loud. We know this because he denied it was too loud. His denial doesn't mean squat. He was going to receive a citation regardless of what he thinks the law is. He can argue his case to the judge.
It was a "lawful stop". A cop is allowed to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
It was too loud because he denied it? Circular logic is perfect because Circular logic is perfect.
Then you say his denial doesnt mean anything after saying his denial means he violated the law?
The fact he denied it gives you a clue as to the purpose of the stop you moron.
Do you have someone around you that can help you think?
Does the fact that she didnt care about the law provide any insight at all about the stop or no?
The officer knows the law and wouldn't have conducted the stop had no laws been violated.
He can tell his story to the judge.
He was pulled over because he was playing his stereo too loud. Apparently that violated a local ordinance. Not random at all. Perhaps the town doesn't want people blasting their tunes out at 2 am in neighborhoods when people are trying to sleep. How repressive government can be. It's getting so a guy can't be a total dick wad without the man coming down on you.
Simply because the cop pulled him over then it must've been wrong? I didnt see anything that suggested anything violated anything.
What time mark did you see that?
You don't see it. That is the point. You have decided the cop must have been wrong because this twit says so. Based upon the behavior in the video, I'll take the cop's word over his any day. I hope the idiot decides to use the video as evidence in court. That will make the prosecution happy.
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Wow. You really want this guy to be right, don't you The violation was refusing to provide a drivers' license. That is what we saw.
I agree with that....I asked what the violation was to pull him over in the first place.
As to whether or not the cop was justified in pulling him over we don't see, but that doesn't matter at all.
Actually, that does matter because thats the question I asked.
Because he broke the law in the video. So you want me to assume that a guy who broke the law in the video couldn't have broken the law before the video?
I'm asking why was he pulled over when she didnt care about the loud music law. Its like
"Hey I pulled you over for loud music"
"My music isnt loud"
"Doesnt matter now, I pulled you over so its lawful"
"Huh?"
"License please"
"For what?"
"Dont matter now, you're already stopped lol"
Heres my question: Even tho this guy knows his rights he is arrested anyway. What do you think the charges are? Even tho this guy did nothing wrong he's going to jail.
He's arrested because he is an idiot.
I block video, anyone want to clue me in?
Police said he was pulled over because of loud music
Driver said loud music is against the law if you can hear it 50 ft away.
Cop didn't care about the law and asked for his ID reason unknown. Driver said he broke no laws and didn't have to provide I'D
Police said she would take him to jail again for reasons unknown but some here seem to believe that being stupid is against the law.
The guy said take me to jail then... and said he's willing in order to protect something called "rights"
A driver's license is required to drive a car. When you are pulled over you have to show you are a legal driver and that you have insurance, usually requires showing an "ID".
Why is that so hard to understand?
He went to jail for failing driving a vehicle without a license.
Simply because the cop pulled him over then it must've been wrong? I didnt see anything that suggested anything violated anything.
What time mark did you see that?
You don't see it. That is the point. You have decided the cop must have been wrong because this twit says so. Based upon the behavior in the video, I'll take the cop's word over his any day. I hope the idiot decides to use the video as evidence in court. That will make the prosecution happy.
Well that and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation and you danced around the answer...
Oh and that I asked several times what is NOT a lawful stop and everyone danced around the answer
Oh and the fact that I asked you where you saw a violation of anything and you danced around the answer...
I mean, I'm sure there is an answer but the fact that you cant answer....over and over...suggests that you dont have an answer
Wow. You really want this guy to be right, don't you The violation was refusing to provide a drivers' license. That is what we saw.
I agree with that....I asked what the violation was to pull him over in the first place.
As to whether or not the cop was justified in pulling him over we don't see, but that doesn't matter at all.
Actually, that does matter because thats the question I asked.
Because he broke the law in the video. So you want me to assume that a guy who broke the law in the video couldn't have broken the law before the video?
I'm asking why was he pulled over when she didnt care about the loud music law. Its like
"Hey I pulled you over for loud music"
"My music isnt loud"
"Doesnt matter now, I pulled you over so its lawful"
"Huh?"
"License please"
"For what?"
"Dont matter now, you're already stopped lol"
This guy was an idiot. The fact that you either can't see that or simply refuse to see that brings you're IQ into question as well. So, once again, let me quote that very professional and intelligent police officer when faced with real stupidity - I don't care. Bye.
"Driver said he broke no laws and didn't have to provide I'D.”
Incorrect.
Laws requiring citizens to provide their name or identification violate neither the 4th nor 5th Amendments (see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)). Consequently the arrest was lawful.
“Know your rights” also means understanding that those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
I block video, anyone want to clue me in?
Police said he was pulled over because of loud music
Driver said loud music is against the law if you can hear it 50 ft away.
Cop didn't care about the law and asked for his ID reason unknown. Driver said he broke no laws and didn't have to provide I'D
Police said she would take him to jail again for reasons unknown but some here seem to believe that being stupid is against the law.
The guy said take me to jail then... and said he's willing in order to protect something called "rights"
I block video, anyone want to clue me in?
Police said he was pulled over because of loud music
Driver said loud music is against the law if you can hear it 50 ft away.
Cop didn't care about the law and asked for his ID reason unknown. Driver said he broke no laws and didn't have to provide I'D
Police said she would take him to jail again for reasons unknown but some here seem to believe that being stupid is against the law.
The guy said take me to jail then... and said he's willing in order to protect something called "rights"
Looks like the wigger broke the law.
Next question?
If he were black he would have shot the officer on the spot.If he were black, they would have shot him on the spot.
But, stupid to go looking for trouble when you know you're gonna lose.
If he were black he would have shot the officer on the spot.If he were black, they would have shot him on the spot.
But, stupid to go looking for trouble when you know you're gonna lose.
Heres my question: Even tho this guy knows his rights he is arrested anyway. What do you think the charges are? Even tho this guy did nothing wrong he's going to jail.
He's arrested because he is an idiot.
Not so sure that he is an idiot. If he was pulled over in the first place under false pretenses, he now has a case against the police department and city. A good attorney will probably get him $10,000 to $20,000. Hopefully the stupid ass cop will lose her job.
Heres my question: Even tho this guy knows his rights he is arrested anyway. What do you think the charges are? Even tho this guy did nothing wrong he's going to jail.
Heres my question: Even tho this guy knows his rights he is arrested anyway. What do you think the charges are? Even tho this guy did nothing wrong he's going to jail.
